Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. John Shabaji Kharat, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 16th April 2015 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in Original Application No. 823 of 2011. The petitioner had questioned the selection of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to the posts of State Information Commissioner and sought a declaration of his own entitlement to the post. The MAT, while recording a finding that the procedure adopted to select the respondents was not legal and proper, refused to annul their appointments on the ground that their tenure was to shortly conclude. The petitioner argued that the MAT was not justified in refusing to annul the appointments and should have granted the relief claimed. The High Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the petition, holding that the MAT's refusal to annul the appointments was justified as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice and the appointments were not set aside. The court noted that the State of Maharashtra had also filed a writ petition challenging the same MAT order, which was disposed of earlier. The High Court upheld the MAT's decision, emphasizing that the petitioner's challenge did not warrant interference.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Selection Process - Judicial Review - Right to Relief - The petitioner challenged the selection of respondents to the posts of State Information Commissioner. The MAT recorded a finding that the selection procedure was not legal and proper but refused to annul the appointments on the ground that the tenure of the appointees was to shortly conclude. The High Court held that the MAT's refusal to annul was justified as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice and the appointments were not set aside. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) was justified in refusing to annul the appointments of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as State Information Commissioners despite recording a finding that the selection procedure was not legal and proper.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the MAT's refusal to annul the appointments of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
Law Points
- Administrative Law
- Selection Process
- Judicial Review
- Proportionality
- Tenure Completion
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (08) 64
Writ Petition No. 6085 of 2016
Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for the Petitioner, Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP for the State/Respondent No.1
The State of Maharashtra and ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment and order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in Original Application No. 823 of 2011.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the selection of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as State Information Commissioners and a declaration of his own entitlement to the post.
Filing Reason
The petitioner alleged that the selection procedure adopted to select Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 was not legal and proper.
Previous Decisions
The MAT disposed of Original Application No. 823 of 2011 by judgment and order dated 16th April 2015, recording a finding that the selection procedure was not legal and proper but refusing to annul the appointments. The State of Maharashtra filed Writ Petition No. 11623 of 2015 challenging the same order, which was disposed of by this Court on 16th April 2016. The petitioner also filed a Review Petition in Writ Petition No. 11623 of 2015, which was disposed of on 13th November 2017.
Issues
Whether the MAT was justified in refusing to annul the appointments of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 despite recording a finding that the selection procedure was not legal and proper.
Submissions/Arguments
Mr. Warunjikar, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the MAT recorded a finding that the selection procedure was not legal and proper, and therefore, the MAT was not justified in refusing to annul the appointments on the ground that the tenure was to shortly conclude. He argued that the MAT should have set aside the appointments and granted the relief claimed.
Ratio Decidendi
The MAT's refusal to annul the appointments despite a finding of procedural irregularity was justified as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice and the appointments were not set aside. The court did not interfere with the MAT's decision.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 16th April 2015, made by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) disposing of Original Application No.823 of 2011 instituted by the Petitioner.
Mr.Warunjikar submits that the MAT in the impugned judgment and order has in fact recorded a finding that the procedure adopted to select Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to the posts of State Information Commissioner, was not legal and proper.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Original Application No. 823 of 2011 before the MAT challenging the selection of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The MAT disposed of the OA on 16th April 2015, recording a finding that the selection procedure was not legal and proper but refusing to annul the appointments. The State of Maharashtra filed Writ Petition No. 11623 of 2015 challenging the same order, which was disposed of on 16th April 2016. The petitioner filed a Review Petition in that writ petition, which was disposed of on 13th November 2017. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition.
